Frustrated with the many laws and regulations in Australia that now make it difficult for farmers to manage trees, including woody weed regrowth, on their land a TREE CHOP CAMPAIGN kicked off on 1st July.
The NSW Farmers Association has failed to condemn the campaign that encourages farmers to cut down trees. The Australian Beef Association is actively supporting it.
Jeff Angel, Director of Total Environment Centre, said farmers were misled if they believed these actions would affect politicians in their favour. According to the Wilderness Society website: “Environment groups are calling for a criminal investigation into the activities of all individuals and groups who have publicly incited illegal land clearing, and for action to be taken against the ringleaders.”
Not so many years ago environmental activists rather than farmers would have been more inclined to break the law. Now it is once law abiding farmers who feel so aggrieved they have resorted to civil disobedience.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Good on the choppers. People like Angel are the problem. People like Angel don’t deserve a single tree. People like Angel get the environment they deserve. People like Angel didn’t want to hear about the facts on the ground, all they wanted was satisfaction of their own urban fetishes, devoid of any sort of reality in the bush.
It must be time to carve out the words “Carr Lied” in a patch of regrowth in letters 600m high so it can be seen on every satellite scan, and every passing aeroplane, for the next 200 years.
As I said before in the tall trees thread “who do they think they are in holding the rest of this country to ransom at a critical time in carbon storage transition?
What most people do not understand is that our constitutional, common law and statute law protected land ownership rights include the fact that we OWN the trees on our land. Not government or its gestapo-style departments, not community stakeholders (I hate that word), not environmental groups that prefer to protect trees before their human brothers and sisters, not big business who stand to make squillions out of carbon credits, not mines who get to offset at the farmers’ expense.
And you know what else? Government sold those trees to the original land owners, the money went into consolidated revenue, was passed out to government bodies and spent. A contract, signed, sealed and finalised. Now they want them back. Tough!
This tree chop issue is not about trees themselves, it is not about carbon credits or even money. It is about theft and deceit and sheer utter frustration. Governments who want to take back what is not theirs to take. In the real world we call that theft. Green groups who manipulate lies and use computer generated images to deceive the general public.
And the sheer depth of despair of farming families who are being used as pawns in a power struggle that goes beyond the resources of most families to cope with. Farmer suicides have been blamed on this drought. Not true, I think. Pile enough manure on a growing plant and you will burn it. Add no water and it gives up the ghost. How does the Australian community think farmers can fare any better.
Good try Sue, but what’s new under this jolly old sun?
A while back in my home state, 60 – 70 % of all small biz went to the wall every year, new lady’s shops in malls, family dairy farms, veg grower co ops, bakers, cheese makers etc. 50% of my new clients had a receiver with in that tax year. Most had no subsidy available, a few paid with half a bag of seconds rather than plough in a whole ruined crop.
“sheer utter frustration” I understand as I’ve seen many adults cry both in the office and at home on the kitchen table. Bank managers always seemed hardened to bad times, theirs and mine.
Although suicide may be on the rise in this country I doubt we can say its just farmers. The ones close to my family certainly weren’t. I can say our expectations based on false hopes are to blame though and too many young people can’t cope with their transition to adult responsibilities.
Having said that; I have great admiration for all genuine grass roots campaigns aimed squarely at mountains of red tape however land owners in this dispute eventually need to formalize their grievances in an articulate way that avoids this current ransom attempt.
Breaking the law these exasperated farmers may be doing, but they are not practising violence against the person and property of others.. As all the fringe green groups have always resorted to doing, whenever they have not got their own way.
How hypocritical of Angel and the Wildernuts Society!
It seems like an appropriate thread to mention again this HOT item carried in several places in the media about increased carbon loss via the extra icebergs downunder –
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/06/icebergs-web-of.html
An article headed “When icebergs are hot” popped up in Times 2 this week
hey
its a good challenge for motty to estimate total negative feedback as we go on
What makes you think they haven’t been articulate Gavin? For years, I have attended meeting after meeting after meeting with farmers of all different speaking abilities putting forward their point of view. Some emotionally, some with a great deal of research in their information. All Get Ignored.
And at a later date the relevant govt body says – the farmers didn’t give us enough statistical information.
At the next meeting you could drown in statistical information. Still….All Get Ignored.
So could someone explain to me why people can stand outside the immigrant camps, demand their release and be heard; protest the US Nuclear Subs entering Sydney Harbour and be heard; have nurses leave their patient’s bedside and march on Parliament House and be heard; chain themselves to trees in forests and close down industries; etc, etc, etc. Yet the farmers should formalize their grievances in an articulate way….
Have you any idea what it takes to get farmers to the point where they unite in an activity like this?
It’s their trees mate.
Sue – do you have a proposal for vegetation management.
When Sue asks “Have you any idea what it takes to get farmers to the point where they unite in an activity like this? I have to say, not precisely. However I’ve contributed to add hoc committees, played with the media, marched in cities, dreamt up stunts, watched federal and state arbitration, made considerable salary sacrifices for various causes then struggled with the fact that lots we did backfired.
Campaign documentation is a bit like the chicken and egg case. One of our greatest protesters from one very troubled factory was a great jester who we eventually discovered was completely illiterate. When he broke free from that most depressing period he made a million in his own biz then got private lessons before writing his own story.
This leads me to comment that a number of fellow campaigners also wrote books while others took photographs. In these days of risk management policy gurus behind every minister we need a camera more than a bulldozer.
For various land management and environment issues early on we had a lot of people up in aircraft so we could challenge governments and confront their PR departments.
Another useful tip in campaigning and it comes directly from door to doors sales is called product knowledge. As consumers we should continue to depend on this aspect from all service vendors, including supermarkets, farmer’s orgs and governments. Today I asked a smart looking lady in a very big PS dept who her minister was. Guess what, she and her nearest workmate had no idea!
Sue: Lock them in! Define your products and service opportunities well, also demand receipts for all claims submitted to institutions both private and public.
Behind the notion that someone might legitimately complain about land owners cutting trees is the notion that the trees don’t actually belong to the land owners.
When will land owners wake up and realize that the government has sold their trees to Greenpeace and the WWF?
Greenpeace, WWF and friends have literally $billions in assets. More assets than Monsanto! So I ask… what have they paid land owners for those trees? Nothing.
So Schillsy, are Greenpeace and WWF two super capitalistic organisations with huge assets?
Check out GP Indias’s website and tell me why they are featuring the hammer and the sickle on the ” clean production now” ad??? Honestly I don’t get it!
Check out to the right on the main website and look at the moving logos, ” save the forests, ” stop pollution”, etc until you come to the hammer and sickle….
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/releases/corus-uk-urged-to-save-turtles
Gavin has his head in a paper bag, again. The correct stats, are that 80% of NEW small businesses go broke within the first two years. This is a whole lot different to suggesting that a similar number of ALL small businesses go bust.
Farms are existing small businesses that have done quite well in the past but are now going bust because governments dominated by urban sickos have imposed a number of “in-kind” taxes that urban businesses do not have to pay.
These “in-kind” taxes have no set amount and no limit. The more Kangaroos one has, the more ‘Roos must be kept at the farmer’s expense, and the greater the proportion of total fodder reserves must be allocated for the government’s ‘Roo herd.
The more trees one has, the more trees must be kept at the farmer’s expense, and the greater the proportion of total land (capital stock) must be allocated for the government’s trees.
The more regrowth one has, the more regrowth must be maintained at the farmer’s expense and the greater the proportion of total groundwater must be allocated for the government’s perverted fetishes.
When injustice becomes law, disobedience becomes duty.
It is not a case of what sort of environment the community deserves because the broader community has had no say in what has taken place. These laws are entirely the work of the scumocrats and the econazis, and the community will inherit the environment that the scumocrats and econazis deserve.
Frankly, I take more pleasure in preventing new trees from growing in the places where we had originally planned to regenerate. Like farms all over the country, the forest expansion that we once encouraged on the basis that it would not prejudice our right to adjust the composition, has now come to a full stop.
Whenever a short lived pioneer tree species dies off we make absolutely certain that no other tree grows in its place. In fact, every single phase of the climatic cycle provides a landowner with numerous opportunities to help nature get rid of trees that the Jeff Angels of this world do not deserve.
So keep up the talk about climate change, bozos, its a cast iron legal defence. But for now, the weekend awaits and it is time to take our simple pleasures as they come. My favourite is pulling saplings out by the roots with my bare hands.
Dear Ms. Novek,
I could not find the hammer and sickle at the link you sent. Greenpeace would know better than to fly its true flag anyhow.
Crikey!I’ve been throttling saplings every chance I get as well. Hmmmm….yeah simple pleasures.
I’d still be interested in any views on what would be a fair system from the choppers.
I guess one view is “we want to do anything we like”
But the only reason we’re in this mess is ongoing massive land clearing of woodlands. Is it reasonable to clear regional ecosystems down to any level including extinction. Is it OK to do anything one likes in areas prone to salinity (and yes many areas are not).
What’s an improved system from now looks like what? Who’s listening?
Today’s Farm Online says:
“Run of good seasons needed to end this drought
By LUCY SKUTHORP – Australia
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Three or four good back-to-back seasons will be needed before the Federal Government’s exceptional circumstances advisory body will be game enough to call the drought over.
National Rural Advisory Council chairman, Keith Perrett, provides advice to the government on drought conditions and any seasonal improvements which determine drought assistance to farmers.
He said while many regions in the eastern States have seen some solid winter rainfalls, he would want to also see a successive number of good seasons, like a decent spring and summer, before he considers farmers have moved into drought recovery. .. ..
Exceptional Circumstances in many areas will come up for review again in March next year. .. ..
ENDS
So urban taxpayers have a fair bit of good will towards the bush including propping up those cash poor but perhaps asset rich with Exceptional Circumstances. Perhaps the protagonists here should contemplate whether their actions will improve urban attitudes or harden the line? Perhaps at this point you don’t care. Fair nuff then – what will be will be.
Farms should be judged as businesses and farmers are not due one penny more than any other business, like the the local panel beater.
People rant and rave about the importance of the food grower and demand that it be local then go to the local market and buy the cheapest product available, its what keeps costs down.
When farmers claim equity it is usually their equity not yours, they want you to support their status quo.
As a political group they are over represented.
Sue Maynes says:
“And you know what else? Government sold those trees to the original land owners … ”
Actually Sue, the “original owners” had black skin and they were shot, poisoned or otherwise removed from the land so that people like you could have it.
You possess land as a privilege, not a right. The world doesn’t revolve around you. Get over yourself.
”Get over yourself.”
Now that would be an interesting manouvre, is it safe?
I should add that farmers capital should include all that lies on the land, it is their business to manage the land profitably and they should not rely on third party support, if concerned citizens want to increase tree growth they should buy their own plot of dirt and plant away.
Melaleuca,
Why don’t you just extend your argument. You say, “You possess land as a privilege, not a right.”
So if we “possess” without any “right,” where do the “rights” come from that allow people to tell the possessors what they can and cannot do with their possessions?
If you don’t retract your remark, any explanation will expose you as a neo-Marxist.
OH MY GOD – an exposed neo-Marxist ! ooooooo wa Quick call someone.
Well, Luke,
As the “first responder” to this situation (13 minutes–not bad), how will you handle this? Will you do a political rehabilitation?
Well Schillsy – one of them thar neo-Marxist dudes might come in darn handy helping Aussie agriculture with it’s agrarian socialist model. Or perhaps you’re available??
Meanwhile I’m waiting to see if anyone from the Chop-a-thon has a proposal or are they just angry.
Story:-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/02/16/1571414.htm
“National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce has defended the single desk marketing system for Australian wheat, saying he would like critics to come up with a better system.
Federal Liberal MP, Peter Slipper says the single desk is a stupid policy – and that Nationals leader Mark Vaile is under great pressure because of the AWB kickbacks scandal.
Senator Joyce says says he will continue to support the single desk system
“I’d like Mr Slipper to suggest what is the alternative to competing against a highly subsided product from Europe and from America,” he said.
“This is how we compete.
“And people say it’s the last vestige of agrarian socialism. Well I’m an agrarian socialist, quite happy to say so.”
Luke – first of all I have absolutely no right to have a plan for vegetation management unless it is on my property. We run meat goats, they eat the weeds. We do not fertilize, we do not spray, our pastures are all native pastures. We have large stands of timber, and find that where a tree stands singly, it is more susceptible to dying from mistletoe and the effects of drought. Hope that makes you happy.
In fact, there are native trees dying all over the rural landscape, while the ‘english’ trees are surviving. A tree takes 10 years to die after the ‘right’ kind of stress, such as a prolonged drought. In our area, I have seen farmers planting trees for many years, well before the imposition of govt regulations. They have planted them because they realize that the older methods of completely clearing the landscape do not work for the long-term health of either the soil or the animals they grow.
Farmers are not stupid Luke, it is a tough game that is weeding out the not good ones these days. So if you want to know about vegetation management go to field days and listen to farmers talk. I am a member of Women in Agriculture and we all have both a personal and financial approach to our properties. Common sense is rife among farmers – just talk to them.
Yet, govt bodies offer workshops like “How to fence”. Duh! Some fresh out of Uni 24 year old telling men and women who have lived and worked on the land for over 20, 30, 40 years how to build a fence! And these same bodies are telling us what we are doing is wrong with our land management. Give me a break.
Rog – I agree, farmers should be no more deserving than any other business of help. However, there is one very important difference between farmers and every other business in this country.
We do not determine our sale price – others do. We produce an animal, a panel beater repairs a car. We get told what someone will pay for that animal, the panel beater says this is my price take it or leave it.
This is because if a beast is ready for the market it is a definite point of time. Waiting for a better market is often not an option, because that beast’s quality may change and reduce its value. We can store certain items for a period, but overall every farm product has an end date.
The panel beater is not in that situation. Currently a beast sent to the market is attracting the same price as it was attracting nearly 20 years ago.
Rationally, if all the small farmers no longer receive support and go, that will leave only very large companies, who will then be able to control the market prices far more efficiently.
If you are paying a certain price for meat now, imagine what you would be paying if the ‘manufacturer’ got to charge more for the raw product.
Think about it.
Melaleuca – land rights are the basis for every common law right the Constitution of this country supports. As an example. You buy a car, pay for it, contract signed and sealed. The salesman takes the money home, buys groceries or whatever and it is all distributed through the system.
2 years later he comes and knocks on your door, and demands to get the heater and 2 tyres back from you. You say “No, I own them, you sold them to me.”
He says “tough”, I have changed the laws and I can take them off you.”
You find there is nothing you can do, so suddenly you have a car without 2 tyres and you cannot get to work and earn your living.
What is the difference between that scenario and a farmer having the right to farm his land taken off him just because the person that sold it made a new law?
Regardless of how the land came under govt control, it has and it is protected by one of the strongest constitutions in the world. Either we as Australian citizens protect the rights of the individual or we lie down and let the socio-communist philosophy of both govts and multi-nationals take it all and feed us crumbs.
You well know that if that salesman tried that, you could take him to court and you would win. Farmers are now taking this matter to court – there are in fact approx 12 high court cases pending. You should hope they win, because if they don’t, the High court will have stated clearly and unequivocably that no-one owns anything in this country and the govt own everything via regulation. Now that dear Melaleuca – is not democracy.
And it is only via a democracy that you have the right to speak out.
Sue snaps back with some good stuff Luke. I particularly like her slant on kids in government angling fresh strategies about fences. As a former semi wild herd owner I know too darn well how silly control fencing for billy becomes regardless of engineering. Many times we were entertained by numerous sets of twins developing their battle skills while running round the side window sills of the kingswood. Thy kingdom comes from real play!
But Sue gets it wrong with her views on panel beaters and price fixing. In my day on the tool run, all panel beaters worked to say the NRMA or similar recovery plan if they wanted a job. The only independents built hot rods full time. Be careful Sue, there is no difference!
Independence sure; farmers get picked up by processors under contracts that reflect offers made on a one by one basis, divide and conquer separates wheat from chaff hey.
Early 60’s Myers offered StampCo manufactures in Melbourne a quick fixed price deal for a batch of wringer type washing machines for their xmass discount sales. The unstated catch was in customer returns. Father in law works overtime but John Stamp goes under.
Guess who foots that bill even today with woolies n co. BTW prices are up on local fish, milk & veg. Stuff still cheap comes from Asia. I buy local rice at twice the imported price but can I have an impact?
Unfortunately that socio-communist philosophy pays teachers, builds hospitals and roads then defends. These days I accept when they come offering free flouros and shower heads too.
Themz the breaks Sue.
I used to feel very sympathetic towards people on the land, but this sort of stunt (ie killing trees for their “cause”) quite frankly makes me have second thoughts. Anyone how chooses to kill something just for a cause and then use the excuse “they are desperate” is no better than kids setting an animal alight. They could say they are desperate too. This kind of stunt shows land holders in the worse possible light. To wantonly kill and vandalise something hints more at depraved minds than anything supposedly noble. Wjp and Ian Mott are classic examples of the former. As malaleuca points out, the land was not theirs to begin with and was obtained by spilt blood. GOMO. If landholders want to make a point, choose other tactics that don’t cause destruction otherwise their supporters here are nothing more than hypocrites.
Gavin – interesting comments re price fixing. When major corps enter the market and offer a price for buying large quantities, they actually help kill small industry. My dad supplied wholesale fruit trees and tropical plants to a major supermarket chain in QLD. They would take up to 6 months to pay. If he hadn’t had a sound business around them he would have gone under like so many smaller growers did.
But your comments also support the fact that prices will rise if the small guy gets kicked out, because there will be no competition left.
BTW back – if produce prices have risen they haven’t risen because the farmer is getting more – so speak to your wholesaler.
What I did notice is that you made a comment on everything except the example of the removal of ownership via the car.
I may not have studied economics but I don’t think the loss of private rights quite equals free fluoros and showerheads. They must have been pretty flash ones! Perhaps for the chandelier?
Kevin – farmers are actually getting to the point where they don’t want your sympathy. As to killing trees, I hope you don’t tread on ants and swat flies mate.
You will find that the farmers are not chopping down the strong, warm-hearted tall healthy trees that they too delight in. The ones they like to sit under on a fine day and have lunch.
No, just the sick ones, riddled with termites, hollow with rot, covered in mistletoe – that to date have also been protected by these laws. Perhaps we could call them ‘mercy killings’ Kev.
Sue I am sympathetic to your plight to a degree -so don’t totally mistake where I’m coming from. And yes the Feds/States have knicked your carbon in trees for no recompense.
Urbanites are also subject to lots of land development restrictions and vegetation protection orders. We are also subject to land resumption if any layer of government so decrees. Yes it’s uncommon for most people though.
Not all land is freehold. Surely if the land is leasehold, the Crown (as executed by the government of the day) has an interest.
And yes graziers clear trees for very good reason as trees compete with grass for light, water and nutrients. So in general less trees means more beef or sheep. Straight economics. And if you like to eat you’re involved in agriculture and pastoralism.
And yes Australian vegetation has a habit of regrowing by seed or lignotubers. So an ongoing issue.
But we have cleared many ecosystems to very low levels. Is this reasonable? Should there be limits? Are you guys happy to send systems extinct?
Should clearing be condoned in salinity prone areas where the State or Commonwealth (i.e. us) is likely to pick up the bill. Do you have a right to cause downstream salinity or water quality problems in areas you don’t own? Surely it’s not just carte blanche?
Some graziers are increasingly interested in mixed landscapes – why – tree strips giving a wind break to reduce evapotranspiration. So same grass, some timber, some wildlife refugia. These landscapes of course are functional productive landscapes but not natural. However they do contain elements that most people would think are biodiversity friendly.
But there are issue of wildlife corridors, reasonable extent of clearing that have to be managed by cooperating groups of landholders not individuals. i.e. the issue is bigger than one property.
So I ask again – do the Choppers have a proposition for government besides “bugger off and let us do whatever we like”? And will firebrand tactics get that change?
You would think an intelligent cooperating community could work a compromise out. Motty tells me “no”. Do you all think the same?
Aaah: I was waiting for that last from sentiment Luke But let’s deal with Sue on my car theory.
Vehicle ownership; like farm machinery and pulp mills is a dubious asset even at the best of times. Also its nothing like freehold title, since we know that asset avoids evictions in the harshest climate. BTW I have never owned a new model despite having up to five registrations current counting the tractor and trailer. Recycling good used models was my thing while I understood all their mechanics.
Freehold title is still a noble target Sue. However all city dwellers face increasing difficulties regarding private development, building ratios and other restrictions including tree falling with out permission are everywhere today.
Now Luke has raised the issue I reckon a smart lady living out in the country has to sometimes make decisions about winners and losers before deciding on her group dynamics.
Good campaigning is about moderation, not burning out and real hard work behind the scene. Take a note of TWS, every tree has its own history and a place in the greater scheme of things.
Peter Cundall On the other hand is quite ruthless in pruning any home grown tree for our personal production. Also note his items are not “bargains on ebay” despite the prompt on your PC screen.
When the original occupiers occupied they kept tree growth down to an open woodland to stimulate grasses for animals, which they then hunted. Nowadays clearing, or thinning, is frowned upon.
Modern farmers face greater restrictions imposed by the representatives of the urban TV watchers and are being criticised for being “unsustainable” despite sustaining good levels of production.
Sue says:
“Rog – I agree, farmers should be no more deserving than any other business of help. However, there is one very important difference between farmers and every other business in this country.
We do not determine our sale price – others do. We produce an animal, a panel beater repairs a car. We get told what someone will pay for that animal, the panel beater says this is my price take it or leave it.”
Rubbish. If the panel beater demands an unreasonable price he goes out of business.
As Luke points out, our farmers are agrarian socialists. They want to capitalise on their profits and socialise their losses. The money that is being taken from my pocket for drought relief is an example.
Actually, I am more sympathetic to farmers than my above comments might suggest. My family had a small farm when I was a kid. I’m intending to leave the big smoke and buy an acreage myself later this year. What I CAN NOT tolerate however is the small minority of farmers who whinge and carry on like spoilt children.
So ….Melaleuca & Kevin MacFarlane seem a bit touchy!Have you ever heard of poetic licence? I bet it was your ancesters that’s got blood on their hands , I’m pretty certain I’m a cleanskin. I used to believe in all sorts of equality ,fraternity etc. These days I find my self praying for a decent recession in the hope that a bit of misery might come the way of people like you and then maybe you might see things as they are in reality land. My advice grab your hat before another hedge fund explodes. I mean in all of history there have been countless invasions ,slaughters and dispossessions and general razings of the landscape.We might well shake our heads at such goings on, which I confess I sometimes do, however we are in the here and now and the battle to be fought is the current round of dispossession. Freehold land with encumberences,we’ve all got them. Giving someone a Right of Way or whatever over your property and not receive some form compensation in return will naturally lead to a devaluing of the asset.A government mandating that certain landholders must give over a certain proportition of their land because it might sustain,say,trees ,without compensation ,is theft.This is in the realm of Mugabeism whereby a foodbasket becomes a basketcase.As surely as agricultural land is denied an agricultural use, food shortages have to ultimately follow. I bags not being the hungry one. Trees have nearly killed me on many occasions bloody falling over and shedding branches, I tell you, and I was always unarmed.Streuth!But I digress. With the recent June rain we’ve had many trees tipping over you know 30-50m. tall 1m.+ girth and you think hmmmm… again! In my neck of woods ,the mid-north coast NSW, the problem weeds such as lantana,blackberry,croften weed and stinging nettle forever prey on your mind, and then you get regrowth which will gladly shade out pasture and then before you know it there’s exposed soil and you’re open to erosion. All this and we still haven’t looked at the cattle! So Luke thanks for being gracious to Sue Maynes re knicking our carbon , but urban land is a bit like the five acres around the farmhouse in that it is basically residential and they both get whacked by similar local and state regulations so thats neither here nor there. Off to the shnow! P.S. Don’t forget to read Michael Duffy page 37 SMH weekend edition.
Luke – most farmers have farm plans. They plan fencing along land contours and areas. They fence off areas of salt and erosion. They plant trees to create wind breaks and conservation areas. They feed the soil to create quality. They do care about their properties. Their families get involved, get ag degrees, do courses, etc. A farm isn’t a place you leave every day and only see on weekends, the farmer may walk it or drive it every day. My husband could find his way around our property of 675 acres in the dark with a blindfold on. He knows where he will bog, where he needs to keep clear of the rock stratas, where to get up a bank without causing damage, where to cross the creek without sinking. He has fenced over 27 km on foot. Dams are usually built to not only catch water but to stop erosion down gullies. Roads have drainage channels along their sides to prevent water gushing down them and eroding them.
Do you know the worst problem we have on our place is St John’s Wort, which even goats are not good at getting rid of. All the wort on our place came from a council dump site on the boundary road. Are you aware that on the South Coast farmers are prevented from clearing lantana without council permission because it is now declared protected? Lantana is not only an african import but even the National Parks calls it an invasive weed.
Please don’t stay under the delusion that govt bodies and greenies feed to townsfolk – that farmers simply rape the land to line their pockets.
What we are fervently objecting to here is the fact that govts do not trust farmers to make sensible decisions and are treating them like idiots who need to be led by the nose. An example – a creek through our property has a neighbour’s boundary on part of it. In the creek a rock bar has become exposed over the years and is spearing water into a soft bank on our side, eroding it badly and collapsing banks. We spoke to the Catchment Management Authority and asked to blow a channel through the bar in order to return the flow to the creek’s original straight line. We were told “If that’s what the creek wants to do, we can’t interfere with it.” So the creek has more right than us trying to protect not just our land, but land in general. The creek is allowed to destroy, we get punished. Explain the equality there.
Melaleuca – you supported my comments. You state that the panel beater cannot demand a higher price. There is the difference. A farmer cannot even demand a price. He is TOLD what he will get.
As to your desire to purchase your own land – do you want it with or without rights because the enter west of NSW – that being over the GDR – is under Sartor’s LEP imposition which means you will not be able to build a house on anything smaller than 400 ha in most areas Can you afford 400 ha?
Gavin – are you aware of what you own when you buy a piece of land? Do you actually know what your rights are in a purchase of land?
Sue – still not hearing a future plan from the Choppers?
No differentiation between freehold and leasehold. And there’s lots of leasehold.
Despite the rosy picture you paint and yes lots of landholders are doing very many good things in property management there are still a wide range of issues outstanding.
We do we have any endangered ecosystems at all with all this good management? Many areas of Queensland and NSW are simply wall to wall clearing. If you can crop it – it’s been cleared.
Panel beaters don’t get support like drought assistance or freight subsidies if the business conditions turn bad. Simply sell up and tough luck ! Cost to rest of Australia from Commonwealth and States drought support $100Ms annually ongoing for decades.
Why do we have 20% of the northern Australian grazing resource surveyed as degraded (see stuffed) – Tothill and Gillies. Why does flogging persist?
Why does the Burdekin catchment export 10X more sediment to the Reef than pre-European.
There’s some pretty average land management out there?
Sue asks “are you aware of what you own when you buy a piece of land? Do you actually know what your rights are in a purchase of land?”
The short answer is “no” since I understand that “rights” are always in a state of flux also they vary from state to state and experience teaches that most time in disputes, lawyers have a field day at our expense.
Let me relate a story about stream flow. When I was quite young my uncles had surveying and road making contracts around the central highlands in Tasmania. Somehow I got to meet a farmer who grazed the high country between the lakes in the off snow season. He was complaining bitterly about a new hydro electric canal that crossed his country. In the wet season it had overflowed and gouged away much of his gravel like soils. There was no compensation available but the irony was the HEC refused to connect power to his farmhouse because he publicly complained. The building of the Poatina Power Scheme back then had captured the whole state and no one else was legally allowed to generate alternative power.
About then I started drawing up house plans after technical class for owner builders on private blocks. We were soon amazed at the rapid imposition of post war uniform building codes including new sanitary requirements from local councils. Much later I was asked for an opinion on a “nuclear” type fall out shelter being developed on a farm nearby for private survival training sessions with both locals and imports. I’m certain the AG was squarely informed (definitely tipped off) after the silly council passed the initial underground farm structures. Certain anti social activities are quickly stamped on.
Sue; everybody has to conform to some requirements and be inspected through out development. Back on streams; as a trout fisherman I trespassed a lot but it brought me into direct contact with both good and bad practice up and down our waterways in several states. Who is to blame?
A most interesting case was learning about the recent history of the Breakaway in Victorian billabong country along the Goulburn River. Irrigation considerations over shadowed the immediate needs of local owners and stream dwellers. The mighty Eildon Weir built early last centaury and enlarged mid 50’s was routinely discharged out of season according to the needs of farmers downstream.
http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au/publications.nsf/8116917c22b76d58ca256f120027bb83/c92f6aec10931e80ca256f0b00215f99/$FILE/Appendices.pdf
http://www.murrindinditourism.com.au/activities.fishing.php
My guess is these flows will again be part of current state/ commonwealth negotiations and definitely out of the hands of local farmers anywhere along its reach.
Luke: seems strange nobody yet has raised the issue in this thread of bushfire as the natural scrub control practice.
No plan that I can pass on Luke – this issue relates to the $10.5 million case of Peter Spencer’s. So write to him if you want more details.
Re the info you quoted on clearing, sediment etc. If you get your info from groups such as the Wilderness Society, the information is criminally biased against farming. They use digital imagery which NASA has told our lawyers is not legal in any court. Case in point – the Gwydir wetlands clearing currently in the papers. The “supposedly” criminal owners cleared land with totally legal paperwork supplied by the relevant govt dept, the land is BESIDE the endangered area and is not part of it, the owners have not done anything criminal either under civil or criminal law. I actually duplicated the images shown in papers and supplied by the Wilderness Society myself using photoshop. The only point of reference needed was the billabong/rivulets, the rest of the image being from logging photos overlaid.
Re rampant clearing, in truth, in the 30 years we have been here, there are more tree have been planted and are continuing to be planted than at any other time in the history of white civilization in Australia.
If you go out west and talk to a real Aboriginal elders, they will tell you, as they have done to me, that the land now carrying light timber was once open plains that they as children and their ancestors hunted upon. They will tell you that the forests of the Pilliga were once light timber that a timber company themselves planted to develop a business. They told me that the growth of the timber industry had actually co-incided with the growth of koalas in that area.
And when you talk land management do you take into account the fact that tar, concrete & housing now covers vast areas of land that were once water flow areas, that once allowed for better drainage, that once carried the same environments farmers are now being vilified for “apparently” destroying?
Gavin – our ownership rights are not in flux. They are firmly enshrined in the Aust Constitution, Common Law, Statute Law, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Abolition of Land
Tenures Act 1660 and all relevant Govt Laws. They are protected by the Aust Constitution, the High Court of Australia, the Federal Govts duty of care, the State Govts duty of care and the Judiciary.
You do not buy land as Freehold. You buy it as a Grant in Fee Simple Title. That Grant sells you 4 things.
1. The ownership of any structure on that land
2. The right to build a structure of any kind on that land. (Forget DA’s, you already have building rights in the purchase.)
3. The ownership of any natural element of the land, from the very centre of the earth, to as high and further than your eye can see above you.
4. The right to create any plan, carry out an idea, start a business, earn an income from your land, rent or lease it, deed it in your will, give it away, etc
All these rights include the unwritten proviso that you do not interfere with your neighbours free and continued use of their land.
You buy your land initially from Crown land with a govt statement that you carry no further debt after that purchase. The purchase is indefeasible and inalienable.
Aust is the only country that has leasehold land under a perpetual lease. This is not known or recognized in the Constitution or any other country in the world. Our research has shown that the original leases were in fact lease to buy – and that at the end of 50 years the debt would be paid in full and the land would become the leaseholder/purchasers.
Prior to the 50 year finalization, govt changed this to a perpetual lease. Currently they are expecting leaseholders to buy the land at market price. When a leaseholder agrees, the relevant dept’s descend on the land, map every area of wetland, trees, etc, etc and the leaseholder is allowed to buy what is left. In some instances, this has resulted in over 50% being removed from the sale.
I have been part of a 4 state research team for over 2 years, investigating every govt law, every High Court case and as much literature as we can find to determine land ownership, govt rights and etc.
Our lawyers currently have 12 cases waiting for decisions – all deal with the various rural impositions and the facts of our ownership. The High Court can only make 1 of 2 decisions. Either they support their own previously stated rulings on land ownership and therefore the Constitution of Aust, or they support govt right to remove any and all parts of land ownership, in which case they not only remove our right to own anything – repeat anything – without it actually belonging to govt first – and they fracture the ‘skeleton of the law’ which gives it validity.
This is called Common law – law for the common man, his common rights, his common wealth.
What govt are trying to impose is civil law. Law by and for govt. This involves setting up their own tribunals, boards, commissions – to support both govt regulations, impose judgement and punish. Civil law is unknown and therefore illegal under the constitution which only recognizes common law. The judicial role comes under chapter III of the constitution and is local, supreme and high courts and uses the criminal act to impose judgment and punishment.
Civil law does not. Civil law makes up new laws daily, imposes punishment whether you are guilty or not. Ask the EDO.
Harry Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission is a HC case which clearly states that these bodies, which include Land & Environment Courts have no legal validity over our Constitutional and common law rights.
What none of you are accepting is that the imposition of the Native Veg and Land Clearing laws under civil law are illegal in this country. The farmers have not committed a crime by chopping a tree on their own property.
What do you prefer – govt breaking the laws of this country or communities reacting in anger to protect the laws for the country?
Sue: As I nod to your wealth in accumulated knowledge on private land “rights” under this constitution I hope you and your lot are not deluded as to the extent of your defence on these grounds.
Now tell me; who owns all the minerals?
Gavin – it clearly depends on what is stated on your Title deeds. Some of our portions have mineral rights, some don’t. Other people have an easement for a particular purpose, some have the rock and trees on portions reserved, to care for a bridge on that portion.
When the land is deeded by the govt to a private owner the reservation goes on the title deeds at that time. If something is not on the title deed, it carries absolutely no legality over the land. Therefore zoning for example, which is not attached legally by the owner, is not legal under our constitutional ownership.
We register our title deeds with the Lands Dept under the Torrens Title Act in order to clarify the legality of our ownership and allow potential purchasers to clarify an debts attached for example. A bank can only attach a debt, ie a mortgage, with the owner’s permission. In the event that we sell our land to a new owner and there is something attached to the land which they don’t agree with, they can have it removed. The govt CAN NOT attach something, that is why zoning is handed to a potenial purchaser as separate paperwork. And there are 3 CLR High Court cases that support all that info. A CLR is a case that makes a precedence under the Constitution and so are major HC cases.
Now a mine in this area has shown that minerals which were unknown in the early days of title deeds, are not able to be included in govt reservations and are the current land owners possessions.
As to our defence we have started with all current regulations and gone back through their history to the original law or act. This then gives a base to see where things have been left out of amendments, etc, which must remain current unless specifically removed.
A law must always be assessed against the constitution or it can be challenged legally and if found in breach can be removed or amended. Most current regulations have never been assessed, because govt, particularly QLD and NSW know they would not be passed. Hence civil law.
We have read almost every HC case, and tried to keep our defence primarily to the CLR ones, which have immense power as stated.
We have also researched English, American, NZ, Indian law as these are all based on the Westminster System – our system. And we have researched all International law, which is not recognized under our Constitution, but does have influence.
Now Gavin – individual parliamentarians may be unaware of the extent of our rights, but I can tell you the NSW govt is, because worded among much of the current regs are ways out for them. And in a couple of cases where public servants are up on criminal charges for trespass, harassment and breaking their responsbility of good and proper government, the relevant dept has sacrificed them – even though those people were acting as dept staffers.
“If you get your info from groups such as the Wilderness Society” – no Sue – not at all – we’re talking well conducted science studies from diverse sources.
Sue there’s a stack of very ordinary land management out there – if you guys aren’t up to acknowledging that we’re not even on the same page.
And we’re not talking absolute number of trees – we’re talking specific types of ecosystems.
Sounds to me like you guys are without a proposal for change and are digging in. Good luck but I don’t think the government as dictated by the urban majority will wear it. I’d be very fearful that all this backfire on you guys.
So you may have to get the guns out.
P.S. If the Gwydir wetlands persons had paperwork to clear the land – well why is it so complex – present it and case dismissed. Am I missing something?
And as far as digital imagery being illegal – if that’s the advice – gee I’d change my lawyers real quick. Clearing is so obvious in modern high resolution stuff – you just have to look at it – no processing even required. You can see individual trees.
For once you are right Luke, we’re not on the same page. Carr claimed 150,000 ha of clearing each year in NSW, satellite data showed only 8,000 to 12,000 each year, most of it regrowth.
In Qld Beattie quoted SLATS data showing 500,000 ha of clearing, half of it remnant, half regrowth. But remnant what? Half the remnant veg was grassland ecosystems and the rest of the remnant was regrowth forest that was 15 to 30 years old. Half the forest clearing was Mulga pulling as has been done for decades as part of a rotational system. No loss of habitat, nothing unsustainable.
Yes, we are not on the same page. Farmers are on the honest page while you are on the shonks page.
And for Melaleuca et al and their “bought with blood bullshit”, my family paid full price for their land and owe nothing to anyone. Yes, black fellas were dispossessed but it is also a fact that there were at least five more potential dispossessors waiting in the wings.
The men and women who settled in this country at the time were “subjects”, in every sense of the word, of a powerful band of thugs who held their position by force. They had no vote, and few rights, many were sent here as a penalty for their circumstances. My own Great Grandfather fell from the rigging of a whaling ship in the southern ocean and was put ashore in Melbourne to make his way with a broken leg.
Life was “nasty, British and short” but it was still better than being a subject of one of the other bands of thugs. So if you are going to dredge up past injustices then at least have the decency to dredge up them all, in context.
And then we’ll have a little chat about all the struggles and the sacrifices that have been made over the past few centuries to establish the hard won rights and liberties that the green/left are now so willing to trash on the flimsiest of pretexts.
There is nothing so ignorant as a moron in a vacuum.
So Sue – while ever you’ve got guys like Mott above on or near your team with this sort of boorish aggro you’re stuffed. His usual terms of endearment are “dumb turd, scum, spivs, moron and so forth”.
Nice try for a bait and switch Ian – doesn’t wash.
Ian always loves to pretend how great the condition of this land is blurring the distinction between forestry and grazing operations.
One never gets a regional ecosystem view – stay safe with the big blurry numbers.
Spare us the narcissistic bulldust that you’re the sole orginal landholder with a story to tell.
But as I said above you might as well get the guns out, as without any proposal for a workable middle ground and a feasible political ally with the numbers you’re on for a battle royale with urban Australia that will go on for decades.
You might win – you might not. But all of us will pay.
There’s a lot of your right wing mates that would love to can Exceptional Circumstances tomorrow and have laissez faire prevail. You might consider who your real friends are.
Luke – I have no problem with agreeing that there is ordinary land management out there, but I can also state that the greater majority of farmers have such a large investment in their properties that they do care what they do. Also, if they want to participate in government schemes, they MUST have a management plan prepared which is then heavily scrutinised.
I must say that I am sorry to be the one to let you in on the facts of information manipulation. When farmers were being accused of clearing vast acreage by groups such as the Wilderness Society, the state govt checked every satellite photograph, every agreement for clearing and every “dob in” they received. Bear in mind this state govt is NOT in support of farming in any way. And the end result was that not only had the farmers not cleared the land they were accused of, but in fact the amount of tree planting had negated the clearing that had been done legally.
That is not to say that there weren’t some “illegal” clearings found, but they were so minimal that nothing was done.
As to the satellite photos that are used, NASA gave our lawyers a written response stating that they would send a representative over to any court case that involved using these photos as evidence. They stated that no court in America would allow them to be used as evidence.
It is extraordinarily easy to manipulate a photo Luke. In court the only photos that are acceptable are film-style photos with original negatives.
Re the Gwydir farmer. Groups such as the Wilderness Society use an organization called the Environmental Defenders Organization to both harass and punish farmers. In a current criminal case our lawyers have brought, The EDO’s lawyer stated that they had third party rights to harass. The judge in turn stated that there was no such thing, and his client is currently on 17 counts of contempt of court.
The EDO which acts on the complaints of ‘ordinary’ citizens and groups such as TWS, does not care that farmers have govt permission,or are acting legally, or have legal rights. They simply keep throwing mud, hoping some of it sticks. This is the case with this issue. These farmers have been labelled as guilty, the media take the info from the TWS, the community believes it, and the farmers have to prove their innocence. Gestapo tactics my friend, no democracy in the EDO.
You stated – “You might win – you might not. But all of us will pay.” Mate, you are paying now with the withering of a democratic system that has given us the ability to be a free and peaceful country, populated by people that have worked hard and become successful. The continued growth of govt’s insatiable demand for more and more money is a result of govt believing that they have the right to have it all. The only way we will be safe if this all goes wrong is not to own a thing. I can tell you that many of the big farmers have already been to Brazil to check out the situation there. Brazil being the oldest democracy in the world at 700. We have also been told by one large international agricultural bank that it will close shop and leave Australia. If the High Court makes the ‘wrong’ decision, you will see an exodus and what effect that will have is a horrific thought.
As to Ian’s comments, I usually do not comment in blogs because they often end in vitriol and rubbish. I am aware of the work Ian has done with new states, he is aware of mine with the constitution. I have, however, enjoyed the sensible comments that have flowed in this thread. If that is to stop, it won’t be because I participate in inflammatory comments.
Sue – thanks for considerate comments.
I’m not going to take on your lawyers in a legal debate but suffice to say if you take that stance you can say any laboratory analysis can be falsified. Why do courts have expert witnesses then. In any case you can acquire evidence from multiple vendors. You can have analyses by multiple analysts from different companies. To suggest that all this would be a grand conspiracy strains credulity and precedent.
In the Gwydir case if they didn’t quadruple check their imagery and surveying the protagonists would be nuts. But anyway I’ll defer to your legal experts.
In terms of paying though – I already am paying heaps in Exceptional Circumstances, money to fix up the Murray Darling, freight subsidies in drought, low interest loans, the National Heritage Trust. I’m so impressed (not) by AWB style management.
And although there may be more trees now than there used to be – standard ruse argument. It’s about what sort of trees and where.
And as for everyone leaving. Strains credulity. There’s still plenty of people out there is big agriculture making a go of it. Research is being asked by landholders how to put a certain number of trees back in the landscape (functionally and profitably).
Many moderate people would be happy with a plan that preserves some areas of representative regional ecosystems and improves biodiversity conservation overall.
So back to having a plan – I suggest your rural leadership at the larger scale has let you down as has government. But you need to reform the legislation or rewrite it.
I find it difficult to conceive that the community will condone carte blanche again.
The interesting aspect of MacFarlane’s post above is the underlying conceit that his “sympathy” is worth a proverbial P.o.S. If this “sympathy” really was present in the past then it was a fat lot of good in keeping the departmental plunderers and predators at bay.
And this “sympathy” is a cheap thrill indeed when compared to the price of half a farm. Lets face it folks, the days when urban “sympathy” was something worth holding onto are long gone. The metrotyrants continually talk about drought relief as if it was some sort of favour, dispensed by an overly gracious patron, but they never bother to consider the megabucks spent on retaining car plants and all the other forms of urban “welfare”.
And meanwhile back at the choppers, in NSW the clearing ban was applied in a context of only 8,000 hectares of clearing each year. Half of this was regrowth which can still be cleared. So only 4,000 hectares was “protected” (until the fire spreads from the National Park and nukes the lot).
So farmers only have to prevent 4000ha of young regrowth from growing to remnant status each year and the legislation will fail. They only need to stop maintaining their firebreaks so a collective 4000ha each year is burned and the legislation will have failed.
That is not a particularly big ask for the owners of 16 million hectares of native vegetation. My humble share of that worthy task is 80 square metres each year. That is the area occupied by one sapling that might have grown to a mature tree. It takes less than one minute to prevent a hundred years of lost potential. The scumocrats should have thought of that before they tried on the jackboots.
Betray me once, shame on you. Betray me twice, shame on me.
I find a lot of statements here curious to say the least. “In court the only photos that are acceptable are film-style photos with original negatives” hey whoz in denial of our current digital world?
Sue: As technology changes so does our acceptance at every level.
This great land has at various times been mapped and programmed using a variety of media as sources. I had a keen interest in surveillance going back to ww2 techniques that included forests and other resources. Detailed planning, compliance work and support for an evidence gathering federal agency was part of my last era of employment. Methods change as required.
Sue says “I can tell you that many of the big farmers have already been to Brazil to check out the situation there” but I suspect that country today is hardly the place for any of our modern Aussie people including many women.
A lot of what is coming through this thread is IMHO un-Australian odd ball rhetoric.
When I threw in a particular case of selfish quasar military style private grouping as an example of drawing a line in the sand by a wider community with good political connections I hoped we could avoid some of this wildest rhetoric being dragged in for effect.
Convicting on any issue is not that simple so why repeat the word criminal? Regardless of who threw the first stone there probably is no plan for public evictions anywhere.
As Luke says there is no plan, and I should add ‘either way’ at this point.
Done with those thoughts!
Sue: Let’s continue with goats instead. My interest began soon after the ending of Dawson’s (of UK) Adelong project and the disbanding of the CSIRO cashmere stud breed from feral stock. Our hopes of further meat / wool improvements were finally dashed by the realization we had serious underlying local soil problems that led to B12 deficiencies. However our small herd proved invaluable in scrub control and weed infestations in a very short time.
Luke you and melaleuca made the following comments –
“So urban taxpayers have a fair bit of good will towards the bush including propping up those cash poor but perhaps asset rich with Exceptional Circumstances.”
“In terms of paying though – I already am paying heaps in Exceptional Circumstances, money to fix up the Murray Darling, freight subsidies in drought, low interest loans, the National Heritage Trust. I’m so impressed (not) by AWB style management.”
“As Luke points out, our farmers are agrarian socialists. They want to capitalise on their profits and socialise their losses. The money that is being taken from my pocket for drought relief is an example.”
My husband grew up in a dairying family on the South Coast, we have been livestock farmers for over 30 years in the NSW countryside. In that time, we have seen several droughts, most particularly 5 years in the early 80’s and the current 6 year drought.
In the 80’s I had just had my son, we had 3 other children and it was a whole different financial situation than now. The wool floorprice had gone, reducing wool farmers income by 50%. Cattle were bringing such low prices at saleyards that farmers were receiving bills rather than cheques. There was no fodder available, so stock were subsisting on whatever. My husband climbed willows 3 times a week, with a chainsaw in one hand and fed stock. Grain was eked out and we lost many sheep because in the course of licking grain off the ground they licked up stones which filled their gut and eventually killed them. Local stores began to close for part of the week to cut running costs. And please, I am not after or expecting sympathy – these were the facts of life for most rural people.
Dole assistance was offered – first time ever – but the catch was that it was assumed that the men were busy trying to keep stock alive, so the women had to apply. So I fronted up with a 2 month old son. Later on, as fodder completely disappeared, more subsidies were offered to meet expenses. We applied and could not do any good. Money available but only for those who could meet standards, which none of us could identify.
Come to this drought. You and the farmers are being told money is available, but in my experience very few farmers have qualified and received any assistance. A couple in their 60’s I know lost their entire orchards, applied and were told their assets were too great. Peter Spencer (the fellow behind the tree chop) originally tried an eco-fish enterprise, govt changed the rules and his business collapsed, he spent years developing an environmental plan for his property and it was refused, he moved into sheep in conjunction with the UNE, the fires forced wild dogs out of the state forests and between them and the fires he lost his sheep. So he applies for drought relief and is told he doesn’t qualify!
So townsfolk are told about these Exceptional Circumstances, but do you know anyone who has received any Luke and Melaleuca? Because I don’t.
Farmers have also been told about $5,000 available for setting up a viability plan. One of the ladies at my Women in Ag meetings is in Partners in Grain – she applied and found the money actually goes to an accountant to do it FOR them. Big difference. But it looks good to everyone when govt says we have millions available for the farmers, doesn’t it. And you think, bloody farmers, living off our money. Are they?
If we decide to earn income via these carbon credit schemes with such companies as CO2 Australia, we MUST ATTACH them to our title deed. They become part owners of our properties and receive tax relief, funding and all sorts of things, we as private traders can’t.
Banks buy our land, set us MIS forestry or vineyard schemes, the investors receive 100% tax rebates, the schemes receive funding and also qualify for exceptional funding.
Now Melaleuca talks about asset rich farmers. We have 675 acres, and a friend in Sydney has a house on ¼ acre – basically same value as our land. Why are we accused of being asset rich and he isn’t?
Sue – Australian Government expenditure on drought assistance in the five years to June 2006 is more than $1.2 billion.
http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/drought/ec/background
By May 1995, the Commonwealth Government had committed over $560 million in drought assistance since 1991.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1995-96/96rp06.htm
So where are all these $100Ms going – someone must be in receipt.
So many places have had their 3 EC payments per century by now in the last 15 years. No more for 100 years? So you can see why some may be interested in climate change.
And I appreciate lots of rural people may have put in lots of work in difficult circumstances but if the local urban panel beater or grocer falls on difficult times – bad luck – sell the business and maybe sell your home too. Tough bikkies.
Now droughts of course affect whole regions including rural towns; we need to feed the nation; and yes car companies have had their share. But if you want to explore laissez faire let-it-rip economics we’d just let you all go under despite your hard work, family farm etc. Someone would buy it all up and make a killing. It would shake out. Singapore sems to survive with no farmers. If you don’t like the business sell up – that’s what the ruthless free market says. And this blog is full of free market – no subsidy advocates. The market is supreme we’re told. If I say anything else I’ll be a neo-Marxist they tell me.
And your right wing mates in power minus the nationals would love to do it. BTW it was National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce that was happy to be an agrarian socialist. I was just going along?
Sue and we haven’t started on dollars in Murray Darling measures, National Heritage Trust, or state drought support schemes.
Maybe I’d like all that spent on schools, hospitals, more urban police and national defence.
I’m not personally voting to do that mind you.
But many would. Rev the political engine too hard and you’ll see increased polarisation of a generally bush sympathetic electorate.
Incidentally:
http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/ “Use of Imagery as Legal Evidence”
Hhmmn, $1.2 billion over 5 years = $240m/year = peanuts in a $1000 billion GDP economy and a $300 billion government sector. That is 240/300,000 = 0.08 of 1% spent to keep 15% of the national economy ticking over. And Luke has the gall to claim that he, personally, is forking out largesse.
What we are seeing in this thread is a repetition of the fundamental incapacity of the urban green/left/scumocrat to empathise with regional Australians. They combine this with the false implication that their opinions are representative of the urban majority. But anyone who listens to the highest rating radio stations will confirm that Taxidrivers, Builders, Plumbers, Surveyors, Engineers, Doctors, Dentists, Accountants, Lawyers and anyone with their own business holds similar views to regional Australians. They hate you too, Luke.
They hate the lies, the spin, the sleazy deals, the sell-outs, the shonky science, the lazy self indulgence and the totally unwarranted arrogance of the mediocre. So don’t pretend for one moment that you and your prejudices are the majority view.
Wow – hatemail – Just listen to that venom “They hate the lies, the spin, the sleazy deals, the sell-outs, the shonky science, the lazy self indulgence and the totally unwarranted arrogance of the mediocre” – says it all.
I can see now Mott’s John Laws shock jock poll driven – why am I not shocked. A whole cess pit of people having a big sook when they’ve never had it so good.
Have a threshold test and see how many of your blog colleagues, even your blog host, support EC – I know what they’ve said in the past. “No support”
And the blog has argued that the recent droughts are so unexceptional and climate change is not a problem so then come up with your $1.2 billion for business as usual.
Well it might surprise Ian that some people are actually paying tax unlike his rich mates list who conveniently dodge it and leave to middle Australia to pickup.
And if it is such a piddly amount of money – well the agricultural sector will efficiently absorb it by itself then by your argument. Can’t have it both ways. Come in spinner with Treasury on that line.
They’ll say thanks a lot and it’s gone !
Incidentally the last taxi I was in thought the bush were a bunch of whingers. Sample size of one. And my lawyer said he loved me too (not hate!) – so that’s two.
Just remember Sue is this the voice you want to hear arguing your side ?
Good luck with the trees Sue.
Reckon Sue has found a President or another link to Brazil?
And now Luke would have us believe that the blog is the ultimate arbiter? Gosh, best tell the guys who have lost half their farm to predatory governance that it is all a silly mistake, a couple of govenment funded blog stalkers said so.
Just 80 square metres, Luke, is all the forest expansion I need to prevent each year to completely negate the NSW Veg Act and its $500m bureaucratic budget over four years.
You and your kind thought you would just ram your politics down our throat and we would just move on. But we are reminded of this injustice every time we go outside. And we have very long memories.
And even in the unlikely event that only 5% of us were to make our response to this injustice in this way, I would only need to remove 20 saplings each year to cover the quota of 20 other landowners with property my size. And then comes February.
No-one is fooled by this “once sympathetic” line and your attempts to sow doubt in the minds of other farmers. It is straight out of the ACF handbook. We’ve seen it all before.
Actually you’re the one that’s ramming your politics down our throats. I’m trying to discuss a few points.
I had no hand in removing your vegetation rights but was trying to ask Sue did she/they have a proposal for change. I didn’t vote or advocate for it.
You’ve previously stated that you don’t wish to discuss anything like that – you just want to scream and threaten. Cool – but others may differ.
Just remember despite your tedious accusations I’m not doing anything against you. I’ve had more arguments with deep green greemies than I can remember. I’m not supporting a government line.
I’m interested in making some changes. Clearly the current system is unacceptable. So what would be acceptable besides carte blanche.
BTW ask Rog and Jen whether they think EC is great stuff.
Gavin – re digital photos, if you have been involved in any aspect of digital photography, you know even better than I do, how easy it is to ‘lift’ the colouring, highlight elements, remove impediments. Even National Geographic has been caught out manipulating digital photographs, when an editor thought the photo would look more balanced by moving 2 pyramids closer together!!
From the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin – “Of course, photographs–which generally hold substantial weight–serve as one of the most effective forms of evidence in court. However, many individuals in the legal community fear the potential abuse and manipulation of digital images. Therefore, they consider these pictures inadmissible under current evidentiary rules. To this end, an examination of the admissibility of film-based (my highlight) photographs and an analysis of cases, legislation, and legal commentary pertaining to digital pictures can provide valuable insight.”
“August 2005: A magistrate in Sydney, Australia threw out a speeding case after the police said it had no evidence that an image from an automatic speed camera had not been doctored. This case revolved around the integrity of MD5, a digital signature algorithm, intended to prove that pictures have not been doctored after their recording. It is believed that this ruling may”
Here is a site re a complaint involving digital photography.
http://netk.net.au/ltg/Affidavits-Spring.asp
Brazil – is the oldest democracy in the world at 700, although it has had various dictators and its democratic principles go up and down. Eg. Many, many years ago a dictator took over all private land and threw out all the ‘english’ owners. Much later, when the dictator had gone and the country had stabilised, some owners returned, were given back their land and a substantial financial recompense.
I use the word criminal because it refers to tort cases – that being situations that have aspects that come under the criminal code and can be judged in a court case. So where I use the word criminal it is because that issue is currently involved in a criminal case or will be.
Re the sites you listed for exceptional circumstances – excellent info. You may have noted that the statement – “Australian Government expenditure on drought assistance in the five years to June 2006 is more than $1.2 billion.” First of all, note that this funding is Australia wide, not just for one state.
There are many levels of drought offerings. As we have an outside income and run goats which would have to be the most drought tolerant animal in the world and we have not had to supplement feed, we have not required any assistance. So I spent this morning doing some research and ringing appropriate departments. Didn’t move to Brazil lol – although I wouldn’t mind a holiday!
Since 1994, 20,000 farms have gone – leaving approx 130,000 Australia wide. This averages at $9230 in assistance per farm.
However, what does that $1.2 b comprise. It includes family assistance from Centrelink – which also relates to farm workers. This is very difficult to obtain for most farmers and as requires them to have a very small asset base.
As you will also have noted on the first site you listed and which should be of great interest to Luke is the following comment – “In addition, in November 2006, drought relief in the form of income support and interest rate subsidies was extended to include small business operators who derive at least 70 per cent of their turnover directly from agriculture. Examples of agriculture-dependent small businesses that may be eligible include contract harvesters, fencing contractors, seed, feed and fertiliser suppliers, livestock transporters, shearing contractors and suppliers of farm machinery and equipment.”
It includes monies given to relevant departments such as Rural Assistance Authority. It would be fair to say that more staff in the from of drought relief workers have been hired to assess the copious paperwork each farmer is required to present. It includes money that departments can use to educate farmers in drought fodder supplies, animal health in drought, farm budgets and drought cash flow (one of which I actually attended the other day), farm health workers, support funds to access counsellors and etc. So that $9230 is obviously much less once you take these factors into account.
You will also have read that although this money was allocated in 2006, there is also this statement – “In early 2007, the Australian Government announced a further number of new areas had been EC declared, with yet others undergoing assessment.” In fact, the critieria to have an area declared drought affected is extraordinarily complex. No rain just doesn’t qualify. And no more EC money has been allocated that I could find.
My calls told me that the most money allocated to farmers has been through Interest Subsidies. This is because it is the easiest to access. However, I was told by a counsellor that many farmers cannot complete the paperwork because of the depth of information required.
What did surprise me however, is that in the 80’s drought and the smaller one of the early 90’s (which did not greatly affect us), all drought money was in the form of loans and had to be repaid, while this current drought is offering subsidies and grants. So this is the first drought where farmers have been given money not loaned money. Outside of family assistance obviously.
What I would appreciate you considering is that most rural areas derive their supporting income base from rural enterprises. When they go under the entire community is affected, not just the farmer himself. Govt support the farmer first, because those dollars – as a rule – go into the local economy and keep it afloat. They also support farmers because banks would collapse if the majority of farmers and the reliant community declared bankruptcy – as would have been the case without support funding in this current drought.
Re your right wing mates comments. The Labor party since Whitlam’s tenures have been blatantly breaking our constitutional rights via signing international agreements, imposing the result of those on our wider community; via Hawke completely ignoring a referendum to give council’s civil rights under the Local Govt Act 1993; via the approx 1400 international treaties and etc that the Keating govt signed without feeling remotely answerable to the Aust public, most of which have been overturned by the Libs.
On a state scale, Whitlam produced a document in 1976 which stated that the public should not benefit financially from their land, govt should buy it all back, sell the right to develop to large corporate developers, while either keeping ownership of the land or its resources and allow the public to own their own home, but not necessarily the land under it. Can you tell me that is not happening now in NSW with Sartor allowing vast tracts of land to be developed around Sydney while absolutely denying a land owner the same right? Sydney is being turned into a ghetto of high rises operating under strata title – where people are even being punished for smoking in their own home!
However, the Liberals are no better, in that I believe they know what is going on and are turning a blind eye in order to allow the state govts to fall when they finally get caught out.
The public are pawns in their power game. Who we vote for I just don’t know, I just know that Labor have done far more to breach our rights than the others and they appear to have an agenda that is more world oriented than Australian focused.
Re the goats,we run boer cross. Amazing animals as long as you don’t make a pet of them. A pet goat thinks it is human and wants to live in the house with you. And they are very good at making that happen, fences do not deter them. Just the most fantastic animals at weed control and the market is certainly set to boom for their meat which is slightly pinker than lamb, sweeter and does not carry the fat layer. As I sit in my office I watch them come and go – they are top grazers and move constantly. We have a had problem with worms because worms sit around the base of plants, and with the drought, grazing is often on the ground, so we did have to resort to conventional worm treatment a couple of years ago, and probably again soon, but now the drought is on its way out, the grass growth should resolve that problem. After the first kidding they often drop twins, even triplets, so numbers can increase very rapidly. Re your soil deficiencies, we have found that salt licks, cal/mag/mol solve a great many problems with the animals.
Gentlemen – as to this thread, it has gone way beyond the original issue of the tree chop. I sincerely appreciate your questions and the ability to ‘hopefully’ answer them in a way that may give you another thought process. I hope that when you read anti-farming comments you think beyond them to the possible agenda that may be behind those comments. We are just humans who love the job we do and try to do our best. And I trust that when you eat a plate full of lovely fresh tucker that you reflect on those who supplied it.
But please remember my original comment – Farmers own the trees on their private property and have not committed a crime.
Sue – thanks for an expansive reply. In terms of intersting herbivores I hear some graziers are actually trying things like camels in central Queensland. For getting on top of weeds. Obviously everyone can’t do it.
The other intersting area in back with tree strips – the strips obviously cut grass production but it seems to work out overall by reducing the wind component of evaporation. There can also be timber and wildlife dividends for birds and reptiles. So a fair bit of interest i how to do these type of things. So researchers who can undertake this type of research are now getting very thin on the ground. Indeed recruitment of natural resource or agricultural science students is at an all time low.
The other issue is that carbon will inevitably become a commodity of value. We need a system that can realise the value of landholders trees and route funds from the offset needs of the industrial complex to some sort of carbon credits. This would also provide a mechanism for improving terms of trade.
Luke – your comments brought one final thought to mind. This info is on my other computer which is down at present so this is from memory.
Early last year, Australia bought carbon credits from New Guinea and sold 500 million of them on the international market at (I think) $20 ea. A total income to govt of $10,000 million or $10 billion. And remember these credits can be purchased over and over again, as New Guinea and other low/nil industrial countries keeps producing them.
If you favour the thought that the carbon in trees has been appropriated by govt and farmers have not been paid – then the EC income is a drop in the ocean of what govt can earn daily from tree credits.
From our research we have concluded that this is one of the primary reasons behind both locking up farms, giving tax rebates to MIS Forestry schemes, preventing even private forests from being logged, and the draconian regulations on development from this state govt.
What might also interest you, is that it has been proven via Dept of Ag and other rural bodies, that there is more carbon stored in a growing crop of lucerne than in a stand of trees. Trees have a storage of carbon that at an older age reduces continually.
Now think about this carbon info. Trees are meant to be absorbing ‘poisonous’ carbons. In fact, any growing matter can do the same thing. Locking up land actually causes the quality to diminish, regular clearing of rubbish matter actually allows growth to spur on and increases the absorption of these emissions.
Simple gardening and science. The focus on trees has an agenda attached to it, by removing the ability to farm as current.
If you understand the ethics of most green groups, they are anti farming of any kind, whether animal or crops. They favour trees over everything, even human beings. I heard one at a Land rally earlier this year telling farmers that sheep should not be shorn! When she was told that would be condeming them to a long and miserable death through wool blindness, fly strike and being caught in branches etc and starving, she simply shrugged and said “That’s nature’s way.”
Thanks again for the excellent ‘conversation’.
Sue
Sue,
Sounds like Luke might have more urban legends than http://purportal.com/
The trick here is that these farmers that are pretending to “break the law”, aern’t actually breaking the law. Cutting of a few individual trees of an un-threatened species for personal use is legal and these farmers know this well, which is why they are willing to brag about it.
However this doesn’t change the fact that urban greenies will think they are breaking the law and their opinion of farmers will be diminished even further. This is a real win for the greenies and it’s great to see it happenning.
It’s also great to see these farmers getting off their backsides and walking amongst their woodlands with chainsaws, rather than just calling up their local dozer contractors.
Hopefully they will soon realize that it’s much quicker to cut re-growth trees and scrub than it is to cut the old-growth and much more effective at increasing grass growth (perfectly legal aspects of the vegetation clearing laws).
Maybe they will start to notice the existing diversity of their degraded woodlands, and that plants and animals do actually still exist there. Maybe they will start to realize what caused this degradation (poor grazing practices), and see how this correllates with timing of grazing and proximity to semi-permanent/permanent water points.
Once they realize all this, maybe they can stop throwing tantrums and start abiding by laws and restore the grassy woodlands, rather than continueing to destroy them permanently for cropping and exotic pastures.
Does Eris seriously think farmers have not walked over their own land before? Does she seriously think that regrowth does not occur amongst old growth trees? Does she seriously think ‘remnant’ is the same as ‘old growth’? Does she seriously think grazing animals are capable of not eating for extended periods so the “timing of grazing” can be better coordinated?
This kind of ignorance highlights why it has now become the moral duty of all farmers to ensure that there is “no net gain” in environmental values from ignorant, fraudulent policy.
The entire debate was shaped by people who refused to recognise that regrowth even existed, let alone comprised the majority of land cleared. The policies were developed by people who refused to make any distinction between 15 year old regrowth and climax old growth. And it was developed by people who refused to distinguished between permanent removal, partial removal and temporary or cyclical removal of vegetation.
The sleazy hideoids even applied total bans under the guise of a “regulation” and then ensured that these regulations were not classed as regulations subject to regulatory impact assessment.
And to top it off, the “broadscale clearing” that the voting public thought they were banning was defined as the “cutting, lopping, topping or otherwise destroying of a single tree”, without regard for whether the tree actually died.
Yes folks, the removal of one small branch from a single tree or shrub is classed as broadscale clearing of native vegetation. There is even a court case (Logan City Council vs Dennis) where a Council tried to prosecute a forest owner for cutting off a root sucker from a healthy tree.
So is there any wonder that farmers have concluded that there is zero scope for working with this sort of scum?
Would YOU accept a definition of child molestation that included any father hugging, patting or otherwise touching any of his children? Would anyone faced with such a definition not conclude that the sole intent of such a policy was to destroy the role of a father?
So forget all the spin about government good intentions, the evidence of bad faith is already on the pages of the legislation. The hand of venal malgovernance writes, and having writ, has moved on to the next farming victim.
It is now the moral duty of every farmer, to both their children and their peers, to ensure that the perpetrators of injustice enjoy no benefit, in either economic, social or environmental values, from their crimes.
To do otherwise is culpable democracy.
Does Eris seriously think farmers have not walked over their own land before? Does she seriously think that regrowth does not occur amongst old growth trees? Does she seriously think ‘remnant’ is the same as ‘old growth’? Does she seriously think grazing animals are capable of not eating for extended periods so the “timing of grazing” can be better coordinated?
——————————————
1. Occassionally when their tractor breaks down.
2. Yes I know full-well that in degraded semi-arid grassy woodlands, regrowth trees grow amongst old-growth, which is why “chaining” isn’t an appropriate restoration technique.
3. Remnant is not the same as Old-growth. You can certainly have individual old growth outside of a remnant (unless you class it as a very small remnant), but all true remnants will contain some form of old-growth. Remnants can exist where tree removal has taken place (provided other disturbance haven’t also taken place), because Old-growth remnants don’t only involve trees. Unfortunately 2mm high old-growth plants are usually overlooked by “tree chop” farmers on their tractors.
I do believe there needs to be more clarity on what a remnant actually is, I don’t like the official definintions at all. In my humble opionion in semi-arid environment all virgin ground should be classed as remnant, and all ground that has been thoroughly cultivated at some time since european occupation -classed as regrowth. That doesn’t mean that in some instances regrowth isn’t also worthy of protecting for other reasons, be it some forms of wildlife or carbon sinks.
4. Timing of grazing can be achieved by removing grazing animals for certain periods of the year or certain years, especially during dry periods (which is when it is required to avoid degradation). This can be done by selling or temporarilly feed-lotting domestic animals, and removing permanent water sources to manipulate the grazing intensity of ferals and wildlife. Or you could let them just starve or die of thirst like many a “tree chop” farmer on their tractor still does.
Eris clearly has a thing about tractors.
I like the one about removing permanent water sources to control domestic and native grazing stock. Has it dawned on you yet that most “permanent water sources” on Australian farms are creeks and small dams?
I gather the Minister has a problem with people moving creeks and an even bigger problem with blocking their water. And fencing them off usually deprives the stock of 90% of the available shade. Not to mention the cost of a ‘Roo proof fence.
And as for your opinion on virgin ground, tell that to shonk central. We were trying to explain that to the blockheads 20 years ago. All they did was nod their heads and then ignored it like everything else.
So tell us all, Eris, exactly how many farmers have you actually spoken with over the past decade? How many farms have you actually visited and walked over in the past decade?
Ian M.,
I was, of course, referring to artificial permanent/semi permanent water sources, which includes the various rivers and creeks that are dribbling water for much longer than natural in dry periods due to river regulation and clearing in the catchments.
And your “virtual farmers” appear to spend all of their time, breakdowns aside, on the tractor. Are you blond, by any chance?
The facts are that it will only take a small portion of total farmers to prevent sufficient further expansion of native vegetation to negate the so-called gains under the vegetation legislation. And the more that take up the task of ripping out saplings the easier it will get and the harder it will be to detect. And it is entirely lawful.
Most farmers already do so. They have been betrayed once and will not allow it to happen again. They don’t actually have to chop down established trees to meet the target but this activity, again, makes each farmer’s share of the target that much smaller and easier to exceed.
It can even be done by letting saplings keep on growing. Many farms have strategic gaps that have prevented wildfires from spreading in the past. And the farmers have carefully kept these gaps open by clearing the saplings on a regular basis. And all they need to do to achieve some serious vegetation adjustment is to let the saplings grow so the next fire can bowl through a much larger patch of “enemy territory”.
I actually thought I had a pretty good handle on the many ways one can help nature get rid of threatening vegetation but I keep hearing of new ones all the time. Thanks to metrotyranny there are some very clever heads giving this some very serious thought.
And as I have said before, you guys have made your bed, now you can lay in it.
Graziers wanted to clear trees to make a few bucks from a paddock and now want to make money from Carbon credits, fair enough.
Land managers will be made accountable for the carbon produced from clearing the vegetation. Once Kyoto is ratified (or when we enter an international carbon trade system) Australia must account for its carbon output. It will cost this country when vegetation is cleared.
The economics of large scale vegetation clearing no longer add up. Earning carbon credits for improved land management practices will become a reality, but to expect payment not being a 21st century carbon vandal is ridiculous.
You got adequately compensated, and I’m sure you’ll remain able privatise the profits and socialise the losses of the agricultural sector.We do need producers and we will support them, but I will not support short sighted vandalism.